Can one go over a written list of guests that one wants one’s servant to invite on Shabbat? Or a list of foods to serve? What is the concern? The gemara brings two explanations and tries to find the situation where there would be a disagreement between the two. Can one look in a mirror on Shabbat – what would be the concern and in what case would it be an issue? Can one cast lots on Shabbat to give out food? What is the concern? In what case would it be forbidden even on a weekday, due to a concern that one may come to gamble? If one causes another to get punished, he is not invited to dwell in the abode of God. From where is this derived – from the spirit of Navot who seduced the king Achav and led him to his death, from Tzidkiahu the king who caused Nevuchadnetzer to be punished? Or from a verse in Proverbs? The gemara tells of the strength of Nevbuchanetzer and also of a story where he was punished in a very embarrassing manner.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Shabbat 149
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא בְּשִׁטְרֵי הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may not read the names of his guests or the appetizers served in his meal from a written list. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this prohibition? Rav Beivai said: It is a decree lest one erase something that is written on the list if he regrets inviting a particular guest or changes his mind about a particular dish. Abaye said: It is a decree lest one read regular business documents.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּכְתִיב אַכּוֹתֶל וּמִידְּלֵי: לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא — חָיְישִׁינַן.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is raised higher than a person can reach. According to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase something from the list, in a case such as this we are not concerned about erasure because one cannot even reach the writing. But according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are still concerned in this case.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק, נֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא! וְתוּ, לְשֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק לָא חָיְישִׁינַן? וְהָתַנְיָא: לֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. וְאָמַר רַבָּה: אֲפִילּוּ גָּבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ גָּבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי מַרְדְּעוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה בָּתִּים זֶה עַל גַּבֵּי — זֶה לֹא יִקְרָא.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And furthermore, are we really not concerned lest one erase when the writing is high up? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one may not read by the light of a lamp on Shabbat lest one adjust the lamp toward oneself; and Rabba said: Even if the lamp was two statures of a person high, and even as high as two plow handles, and even if it was as high as ten houses one atop the other, one may not read by its light. This clearly demonstrates that when we are concerned that one may violate halakha, we do not distinguish between situations in which such a violation is more or less likely.
אֶלָּא, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּכְתִיב אַכּוֹתֶל וּמִיתַּתֵּי: לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק — חָיְישִׁינַן, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, גּוּדָּא בִּשְׁטָרָא לָא מִיחַלַּף.
Rather, there is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is low down. According to the one who says that the reason for the decree is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are concerned because one can easily reach the writing and erase it. However, according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are not concerned because a wall will not be confused with a document, and reading from the wall will not cause one to then read business documents.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא, לֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק! אֶלָּא, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דַּחֲיִיק אַטַּבְלָא וְאַפִּינְקָס: לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא — חָיְישִׁינַן.
The Gemara asks further: And according to the one who says that the concern is lest one read, we should also be concerned lest one erase. Rather, there is a practical difference between them in a case where the writing is engraved on a tablet or on a board. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are not concerned. Since the writing is not in ink, there is no concern that he will erase it. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one read business documents, we are concerned. The style of writing is irrelevant in terms of the likelihood that one will end up reading business documents.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק, לֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא! וְכִי תֵּימָא: טַבְלָא וּפִינְקָס בִּשְׁטָרָא לָא מִיחַלַּף — וְהָתַנְיָא: מוֹנֶה אָדָם כַּמָּה מִבִּפְנִים וְכַמָּה מִבַּחוּץ וְכַמָּה מָנוֹת עָתִיד לְהַנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶם מִכְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַכּוֹתֶל, אֲבָל לֹא מִכְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי טַבְלָא וּפִינְקָס!
The Gemara asks further: According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And if you say: A tablet or a board will not be confused with a document, but wasn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: One may count how many guests will sit inside, and how many guests will sit outside, and how many portions he will place before them from writing that is on the wall, but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּכְתִיב מִיכְתָּב — מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא. אֶלָּא לָאו דַּחֲיִיק, וְקָתָנֵי: מִכְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַכּוֹתֶל אֲבָל לֹא מִכְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי טַבְלָא וּפִינְקָס!
The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances of the case described in this statement? If you say that it was written in ink, what is the difference here, when the writing is on a wall, and what is the difference here, when the writing is on a tablet? Rather, is it not a case of a list that has been engraved, and nonetheless it teaches that one may read from writing that is on the wall but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?
אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם דִּכְתִיב אַכּוֹתֶל וּמִידְּלֵי, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ דְּרַבָּה — דְּרַבָּה תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: מוֹנֶה אָדָם אֶת אוֹרְחָיו וְאֶת פַּרְפְּרוֹתָיו מִפִּיו, אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַכְּתָב. רַבִּי אַחָא מַתִּיר מִכְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַכּוֹתֶל.
Rather, we should actually explain that the writing was on a wall and was raised. And with regard to what was difficult for you, based on Rabba’s statement that prohibited reading by candlelight on Shabbat regardless of the height of the candle, which presumably means that in our case, too, we should be stringent regardless of the height of the writing, that statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: One may count one’s guests and one’s appetizers from memory, but not from a written list. Rabbi Aḥa permits reading from a written list that is on a wall.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּכְתִיב וּמִתַּתַּאי — לִיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק! אֶלָּא לָאו דִּכְתִיב וּמִידְּלֵי, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּרַבָּה תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances in which Rabbi Aḥa permits this? If you say that it is written below, low down on the wall, we should be concerned that perhaps one will erase it. Rather, is it not referring to a case in which it is written and the location of the writing is raised such that it is high up on the wall, and conclude from this that the statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute among the tanna’im? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that it is so.
וְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי כְּהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין רוֹאִין בְּמַרְאָה בְּשַׁבָּת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַתִּיר בְּמַרְאָה הַקְּבוּעָה בַּכּוֹתֶל.
The Gemara comments that in this matter, these tanna’im are like those tanna’im, who also argued over the same principle, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not look in a mirror on Shabbat lest one see a hair hanging and pluck it. Rabbi Meir permits looking in a mirror that is fixed on a wall.
מַאי שְׁנָא הַקְּבוּעָה בַּכּוֹתֶל — דְּאַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי מִדְּכַר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָבוּעַ נָמֵי: אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי מִדְּכַר!
The Gemara questions Rabbi Meir’s leniency: What is different about a mirror that is fixed on a wall? In that situation we say that, in the meantime, while one goes to bring scissors or another appliance to cut one’s hair, one will remember that it is Shabbat and that it is prohibited to cut hair. If so, with regard to a mirror that is not fixed on a wall, we can also say that in the meantime one will remember.
הָכָא בְּמַרְאָה שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת עָסְקִינַן, וְכִדְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ. דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ מַרְאָה שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת אֲסוּרָה — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָדָם עָשׂוּי לְהַשִּׁיר בָּהּ נִימִין הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין.
Rather, here we are dealing with a metal mirror, and it is as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said, for Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: For what reason did the Sages say that a metal mirror is prohibited for use on Shabbat? Because a person may remove hanging hairs with it, meaning that one may use the sharp edge of the mirror itself to cut the hairs. If the mirror is permanently set on the wall, we are not concerned that one will do this. This is similar to the view that one may read writing that is high up on a wall because it is impractical to erase the writing.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּתָב הַמְהַלֵּךְ תַּחַת הַצּוּרָה וְתַחַת הַדְּיוֹקְנָאוֹת — אָסוּר לִקְרוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. וּדְיוֹקְנָא עַצְמָהּ — אַף בַּחוֹל אָסוּר לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בָּהּ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֱלִילִים״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חָנִין: אַל תְּפַנּוּ אֵל מִדַּעְתְּכֶם.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to writing that is under a picture or under graven images [deyokenaot], it is prohibited to read it on Shabbat lest one end up reading business documents. And with regard to an idolatrous image itself, even on a weekday it is prohibited to look at it, because it says: “Do not turn toward idols [al tifnu el ha’elilim] or make yourselves molten gods, I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:4). The Gemara asks for clarification: What is the biblical derivation? How does this verse indicate that one may not look at an idolatrous image? Rabbi Ḥanin said: Do not push God [al tefannu El] out of your mind by looking at these images (Arukh).
מֵפִיס אָדָם עִם בָּנָיו וְכוּ׳. עִם בָּנָיו וְעִם בְּנֵי בֵיתוֹ אִין, וְעִם אַחֵר — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה הַמַּקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה — עוֹבְרִין מִשּׁוּם מִדָּה וּמִשּׁוּם מִשְׁקָל וּמִשּׁוּם מִנְיָן, וּמִשּׁוּם לוֹוִין וּפוֹרְעִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב,
We learned in the mishna that a person may draw lots with one’s children and family members at the table on Shabbat to see who will receive which meal portion. The Gemara infers: With one’s children and family members, yes, it is permitted, but with another person it is not. What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains that it is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, for Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Members of a group who are eating together on Shabbat or on a Festival and who are particular with each other that no one receive a larger portion than anyone else are in violation of the prohibitions of measuring, and weighing, and counting merchandise on Shabbat or a Festival, and they are also in violation of the prohibition against lending and repaying on a Festival.
וּכְדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל אַף מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית.
And according to Beit Hillel, they even violate the prohibition of interest. In Beit Hillel’s view, it is prohibited to loan or return objects without determining their monetary value, lest the object rise in value and the borrower end up returning an item that is more expensive than the one he borrowed.
אִי הָכִי בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ נָמֵי! בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא — כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מוּתָּר לְהַלְווֹת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ בְּרִבִּית כְּדֵי לְהַטְעִימָן טַעַם רִבִּית.
The Gemara asks: If this is so, and one violates so many prohibitions when drawing lots, it should be prohibited to do so with one’s children and family members also. The Gemara answers: With regard to one’s children and family members, this is the reason that it is permitted: It is like the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, for Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is permitted to loan to one’s children and family members with interest, in order to let them experience a taste of how difficult it is to repay a loan taken with interest. Also, in the case of family members, all the money, including the money used to repay the loan, belongs to the same person. Therefore, there is no real prohibition of interest.
אִי הָכִי, מָנָה גְּדוֹלָה כְּנֶגֶד מָנָה קְטַנָּה נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: If this is so, and everything in this case actually belongs to the father, and he uses a lottery system in order to educate his family, it should be permitted to cast lots for a big portion against a small portion also.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: מֵפִיס אָדָם עִם בָּנָיו וְעִם בְּנֵי בֵיתוֹ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֲפִילּוּ מָנָה גְּדוֹלָה כְּנֶגֶד מָנָה קְטַנָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא? — כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב. עִם בָּנָיו וְעִם בְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ — אִין, עִם אֲחֵרִים — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. מָנָה גְּדוֹלָה כְּנֶגֶד מָנָה קְטַנָּה — אַף בַּחוֹל לַאֲחֵרִים אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? — מִשּׁוּם קוּבְיָא.
The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: A person may draw lots with his children and his family members at the table, and he may even do so with a large portion against a small portion. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. Although with one’s children and family members, yes, this is permitted, with others it is not. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Raffling a large portion against a small portion is prohibited to do for other people, even on a weekday. What is the reason? Due to the prohibition against gambling with dice, which is prohibited by rabbinic law as a form of theft.
מְטִילִין חֲלָשִׁין עַל וְכוּ׳. מַאי ״אֲבָל לֹא עַל הַמָּנוֹת״? אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב: אֲבָל לֹא עַל הַמָּנוֹת שֶׁל חוֹל בְּיוֹם טוֹב. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״וְעַמְּךָ כִּמְרִיבֵי כֹּהֵן״, אֲפִילּוּ מָנוֹת דְּחוֹל נָמֵי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The mishna taught that one may draw lots for the sacrifices but not for the specific portions. This statement is not entirely clear, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: But not for the specific portions? Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said that it means: But one may not draw lots for the weekday [ḥol] portions on a Festival. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since the priests are naturally quarrelsome, which the Sages derive from that which is written: “Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove, for your people are like those that strive with the priest” (Hosea 4:4), and in order to maintain peace between them even lotteries for weekday portions were also permitted, therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not the case.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב: כָּל שֶׁחֲבֵירוֹ נֶעֱנָשׁ עַל יָדוֹ — אֵין מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ בִּמְחִיצָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. מְנָלַן? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ מִי יְפַתֶּה אֶת אַחְאָב וְיַעַל וְיִפּוֹל בְּרָמוֹת גִּלְעָד וַיֹּאמֶר זֶה בְּכֹה וְזֶה אֹמֵר בְּכֹה. וַיֵּצֵא הָרוּחַ וַיַּעֲמוֹד לִפְנֵי ה׳ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲנִי אֲפַתֶּנּוּ וְגוֹ׳ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵצֵא וְהָיִיתִי רוּחַ שֶׁקֶר בְּפִי כׇּל נְבִיאָיו וַיֹּאמֶר תְּפַתֶּה וְגַם תּוּכָל צֵא וַעֲשֵׂה כֵן״,
Having quoted Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, the Gemara brings another teaching of this amora. And Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said: Anyone who causes another to be punished on his account, they do not bring him within the partition of the Holy One, Blessed be He, even if he is right. The Gemara asks: From where do we know this? If you say it is because of what is written in the prophecy of Micaiah, that proof can be disputed. It is written: “And the Lord said: Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramot Gilad? And one said: In this manner, and another said: In that manner. And the spirit came out and stood before the Lord and said: I will entice him. And the Lord said to it: With what? And it said: I will go out and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all of his prophets. And He said: You shall entice him and will prevail. Go out and do this” (I Kings 22:20–22).
וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי ״רוּחַ״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זֶה רוּחוֹ שֶׁל נָבוֹת. וּמַאי ״צֵא״ אָמַר רַב: צֵא מִמְּחִיצָתִי. וְדִילְמָא הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, דִּכְתִיב ״דּוֹבֵר שְׁקָרִים לֹא יִכּוֹן״?!
And we said: What is this spirit? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the spirit of Naboth the Jezreelite, who asked to avenge his death at the hands of Ahab. And what is the meaning of the words: Go out, which God commanded him? Rav said: It means that he was given permission to entice Ahab, but God said: Leave from within My partition. Therefore, it seems that the spirit of Naboth was told to leave God’s area because it caused Ahab to be punished. The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps there, the reason is as it is written: “One who speaks lies shall not dwell before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7), and this is the only reason that the spirit of Naboth was removed from within God’s partition.
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״שָׂבַעְתָּ קָלוֹן מִכָּבוֹד שְׁתֵה גַם אַתָּה וְהֵעָרֵל וְגוֹ׳״. ״שָׂבַעְתָּ קָלוֹן מִכָּבוֹד״ — זֶה נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר. ״שְׁתֵה גַם אַתָּה וְהֵעָרֵל״ — זֶה צִדְקִיָּה. חֲדָא, דְּכוּלֵּיהּ קְרָא בִּנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר כְּתִיב. וְעוֹד: צִדְקִיָּה צַדִּיקָא מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִיעְבַּד לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק כָּךְ וְכוּ׳.
Rather, it is derived from here: “You are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised, the cup of the Lord’s right hand will turn to you and filthiness shall be upon your glory” (Habakkuk 2:16). The verse is expounded: “You are filled with shame instead of honor”; this is referring to Nebuchadnezzar. “Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised”; this is referring to Zedekiah, who was also punished for being the cause of Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment, as will be explained. The Gemara rejects this proof: One objection to this is that the entire verse is written about Nebuchadnezzar. And furthermore, with regard to Zedekiah, the righteous one, what could he have done to him? For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said about this matter: When that wicked man wanted to do this to that righteous man, his foreskin was stretched, as will be explained.
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״גַּם עֲנוֹשׁ לַצַּדִּיק לֹא טוֹב״, אֵין ״לֹא טוֹב״ אֶלָּא רָע, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא אֵל חָפֵץ רֶשַׁע אָתָּה לֹא יְגוּרְךָ רָע״ — צַדִּיק אַתָּה ה׳ וְלֹא יָגוּר בִּמְגוּרְךָ רָע.
Rather, the basis for this idea is from here: “Punishment is also not good for the righteous” (Proverbs 17:26), meaning that it is not good for a righteous person to issue punishment. There is no meaning of not good other than evil. And it says: “For You are not a God that desires wickedness, evil will not dwell with You” (Psalms 5:5), meaning that You, God, are righteous and evil shall not dwell with You in Your place of dwelling. Even a righteous person who punishes someone and is called evil and cannot dwell within God’s partition.
מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי ״חֲלָשִׁים״ לִישָּׁנָא דְפוּרָא הוּא? — דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם הֵילֵל בֶּן שָׁחַר נִגְדַּעְתָּ לָאָרֶץ חוֹלֵשׁ עַל גּוֹיִם וְגוֹ׳״, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה מֵטִיל פּוּר עַל גְּדוֹלֵי מַלְכוּת לֵידַע אֵיזֶה בֶּן יוֹמוֹ שֶׁל מִשְׁכַּב זָכוּר. וּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל מַלְכֵי גוֹיִם כּוּלָּם וְגוֹ׳״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁנָּחוּ מִמִּשְׁכַּב זָכוּר.
The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term used in the mishna, ḥalashim, is a word for lots? As it is written: “How have you fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How have you been cut down to the ground, casting lots [ḥolesh] over the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12), and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This verse teaches us that he, Nebuchadnezzar, would cast lots [ḥolesh] for the royal leaders of the nations he had captured, in order to know whose day it was to service him with homosexual relations. And it is written: “All the kings of the nations, all of them sleep in glory, every one in his own house” (Isaiah 14:18). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The meaning of this verse is that they rested from homosexual relations.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל יָמָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע לֹא נִמְצָא שְׂחוֹק בְּפִי כׇּל בְּרִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נָחָה שָׁקְטָה כׇּל הָאָרֶץ פָּצְחוּ רִנָּה״, מִכְּלָל דְּעַד הַשְׁתָּא לָא הֲוָה רִנָּה.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All of the days of the life of that wicked man, laughter could not be found in the mouth of any creature, as it is stated: “The whole earth is at rest and is quiet; they break forth into singing” (Isaiah 14:7). This proves by inference that until now there was not any song.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָסוּר לַעֲמוֹד בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׂעִירִים יְרַקְּדוּ שָׁם״.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited even nowadays to stand in the ruins of the house of that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, in Babylonia, for it is stated about that place: “And demons shall dance there” (Isaiah 13:21). There is concern that one may be injured by the harmful forces there (Maharsha).
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבִּיקֵּשׁ אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע, לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק כָּךְ, נִמְשְׁכָה עׇרְלָתוֹ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה, וְהָיְתָה מְחַזֶּרֶת עַל כׇּל הַמְּסִיבָּה כּוּלָּהּ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שָׂבַעְתָּ קָלוֹן מִכָּבוֹד שְׁתֵה גַם אַתָּה וְהֵעָרֵל״, עָרֵל בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת הָוֵי.
And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, wanted to do to that righteous man, Zedekiah, this act of sodomy, his foreskin was stretched three hundred cubits, and it surrounded the entire company at Nebuchadnezzar’s feast, as it is stated: “Woe to one who gives his neighbor drink, who puts your venom in and also makes him drunk so that you may look upon their nakedness. You are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised [vehe’arel]” (Habakkuk 2:15–16). The word arel, which refers here to one who is uncircumcised and also connotes the foreskin, has a numerical value of three hundred.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיָּרַד אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע לְגֵיהִנָּם רָעֲשׁוּ כׇּל יוֹרְדֵי גֵיהִנָּם, אָמְרוּ: שֶׁמָּא לִמְשׁוֹל עֲלֵיהֶם הוּא בָּא, אוֹ לֵיחָלוֹת כְּמוֹתָם הוּא בָּא? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גַּם אַתָּה חוּלֵּיתָ כָמוֹנוּ אֵלֵינוּ נִמְשָׁלְתָּ״, יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״מִמִּי נָעָמְתָּ רְדָה וְהׇשְׁכְּבָה אֶת עֲרֵלִים״.
And Rav Yehuda also said that Rav said: When that wicked man descended into Gehenna, everyone who had already descended to Gehenna trembled, and they said, referring to themselves in third person: Perhaps he is coming to rule over them; or is he coming to be weakened like them? As it is stated: “They all answer and say to you: Have you also become weak like us? Have you become like us [eleinu nimshalta]?” (Isaiah 14:10). The Hebrew phrase: Eleinu nimshalta, can mean: Have you become like us, or alternatively: Have you come to rule over us. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “Whom do you pass in beauty? Go down and be laid with the uncircumcised” (Ezekiel 32:19). This confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar has the same status in Gehenna as everyone else.
״אֵיךְ שָׁבַת נוֹגֵשׂ שָׁבְתָה מַדְהֵבָה״, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שָׁבְתָה אוּמָּה זוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה
On a related note, the verse states: “And you shall take up this parable against the king of Babylonia and you shall say: How has the oppressor ceased. The exactor of gold has ceased” (Isaiah 14:4). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The meaning of this verse is that this nation that said:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Raanana, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
Shabbat 149
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא בְּשִׁטְרֵי הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may not read the names of his guests or the appetizers served in his meal from a written list. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this prohibition? Rav Beivai said: It is a decree lest one erase something that is written on the list if he regrets inviting a particular guest or changes his mind about a particular dish. Abaye said: It is a decree lest one read regular business documents.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּכְתִיב אַכּוֹתֶל וּמִידְּלֵי: לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא — חָיְישִׁינַן.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is raised higher than a person can reach. According to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase something from the list, in a case such as this we are not concerned about erasure because one cannot even reach the writing. But according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are still concerned in this case.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק, נֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא! וְתוּ, לְשֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק לָא חָיְישִׁינַן? וְהָתַנְיָא: לֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. וְאָמַר רַבָּה: אֲפִילּוּ גָּבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ גָּבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי מַרְדְּעוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה בָּתִּים זֶה עַל גַּבֵּי — זֶה לֹא יִקְרָא.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And furthermore, are we really not concerned lest one erase when the writing is high up? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one may not read by the light of a lamp on Shabbat lest one adjust the lamp toward oneself; and Rabba said: Even if the lamp was two statures of a person high, and even as high as two plow handles, and even if it was as high as ten houses one atop the other, one may not read by its light. This clearly demonstrates that when we are concerned that one may violate halakha, we do not distinguish between situations in which such a violation is more or less likely.
אֶלָּא, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּכְתִיב אַכּוֹתֶל וּמִיתַּתֵּי: לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק — חָיְישִׁינַן, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, גּוּדָּא בִּשְׁטָרָא לָא מִיחַלַּף.
Rather, there is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is low down. According to the one who says that the reason for the decree is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are concerned because one can easily reach the writing and erase it. However, according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are not concerned because a wall will not be confused with a document, and reading from the wall will not cause one to then read business documents.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא, לֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק! אֶלָּא, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דַּחֲיִיק אַטַּבְלָא וְאַפִּינְקָס: לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא — חָיְישִׁינַן.
The Gemara asks further: And according to the one who says that the concern is lest one read, we should also be concerned lest one erase. Rather, there is a practical difference between them in a case where the writing is engraved on a tablet or on a board. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are not concerned. Since the writing is not in ink, there is no concern that he will erase it. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one read business documents, we are concerned. The style of writing is irrelevant in terms of the likelihood that one will end up reading business documents.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק, לֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא! וְכִי תֵּימָא: טַבְלָא וּפִינְקָס בִּשְׁטָרָא לָא מִיחַלַּף — וְהָתַנְיָא: מוֹנֶה אָדָם כַּמָּה מִבִּפְנִים וְכַמָּה מִבַּחוּץ וְכַמָּה מָנוֹת עָתִיד לְהַנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶם מִכְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַכּוֹתֶל, אֲבָל לֹא מִכְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי טַבְלָא וּפִינְקָס!
The Gemara asks further: According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And if you say: A tablet or a board will not be confused with a document, but wasn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: One may count how many guests will sit inside, and how many guests will sit outside, and how many portions he will place before them from writing that is on the wall, but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּכְתִיב מִיכְתָּב — מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא. אֶלָּא לָאו דַּחֲיִיק, וְקָתָנֵי: מִכְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַכּוֹתֶל אֲבָל לֹא מִכְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי טַבְלָא וּפִינְקָס!
The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances of the case described in this statement? If you say that it was written in ink, what is the difference here, when the writing is on a wall, and what is the difference here, when the writing is on a tablet? Rather, is it not a case of a list that has been engraved, and nonetheless it teaches that one may read from writing that is on the wall but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?
אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם דִּכְתִיב אַכּוֹתֶל וּמִידְּלֵי, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ דְּרַבָּה — דְּרַבָּה תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: מוֹנֶה אָדָם אֶת אוֹרְחָיו וְאֶת פַּרְפְּרוֹתָיו מִפִּיו, אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַכְּתָב. רַבִּי אַחָא מַתִּיר מִכְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַכּוֹתֶל.
Rather, we should actually explain that the writing was on a wall and was raised. And with regard to what was difficult for you, based on Rabba’s statement that prohibited reading by candlelight on Shabbat regardless of the height of the candle, which presumably means that in our case, too, we should be stringent regardless of the height of the writing, that statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: One may count one’s guests and one’s appetizers from memory, but not from a written list. Rabbi Aḥa permits reading from a written list that is on a wall.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּכְתִיב וּמִתַּתַּאי — לִיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִמְחוֹק! אֶלָּא לָאו דִּכְתִיב וּמִידְּלֵי, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּרַבָּה תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances in which Rabbi Aḥa permits this? If you say that it is written below, low down on the wall, we should be concerned that perhaps one will erase it. Rather, is it not referring to a case in which it is written and the location of the writing is raised such that it is high up on the wall, and conclude from this that the statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute among the tanna’im? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that it is so.
וְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי כְּהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין רוֹאִין בְּמַרְאָה בְּשַׁבָּת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַתִּיר בְּמַרְאָה הַקְּבוּעָה בַּכּוֹתֶל.
The Gemara comments that in this matter, these tanna’im are like those tanna’im, who also argued over the same principle, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not look in a mirror on Shabbat lest one see a hair hanging and pluck it. Rabbi Meir permits looking in a mirror that is fixed on a wall.
מַאי שְׁנָא הַקְּבוּעָה בַּכּוֹתֶל — דְּאַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי מִדְּכַר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָבוּעַ נָמֵי: אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי מִדְּכַר!
The Gemara questions Rabbi Meir’s leniency: What is different about a mirror that is fixed on a wall? In that situation we say that, in the meantime, while one goes to bring scissors or another appliance to cut one’s hair, one will remember that it is Shabbat and that it is prohibited to cut hair. If so, with regard to a mirror that is not fixed on a wall, we can also say that in the meantime one will remember.
הָכָא בְּמַרְאָה שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת עָסְקִינַן, וְכִדְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ. דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ מַרְאָה שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת אֲסוּרָה — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָדָם עָשׂוּי לְהַשִּׁיר בָּהּ נִימִין הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין.
Rather, here we are dealing with a metal mirror, and it is as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said, for Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: For what reason did the Sages say that a metal mirror is prohibited for use on Shabbat? Because a person may remove hanging hairs with it, meaning that one may use the sharp edge of the mirror itself to cut the hairs. If the mirror is permanently set on the wall, we are not concerned that one will do this. This is similar to the view that one may read writing that is high up on a wall because it is impractical to erase the writing.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּתָב הַמְהַלֵּךְ תַּחַת הַצּוּרָה וְתַחַת הַדְּיוֹקְנָאוֹת — אָסוּר לִקְרוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. וּדְיוֹקְנָא עַצְמָהּ — אַף בַּחוֹל אָסוּר לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בָּהּ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֱלִילִים״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חָנִין: אַל תְּפַנּוּ אֵל מִדַּעְתְּכֶם.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to writing that is under a picture or under graven images [deyokenaot], it is prohibited to read it on Shabbat lest one end up reading business documents. And with regard to an idolatrous image itself, even on a weekday it is prohibited to look at it, because it says: “Do not turn toward idols [al tifnu el ha’elilim] or make yourselves molten gods, I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:4). The Gemara asks for clarification: What is the biblical derivation? How does this verse indicate that one may not look at an idolatrous image? Rabbi Ḥanin said: Do not push God [al tefannu El] out of your mind by looking at these images (Arukh).
מֵפִיס אָדָם עִם בָּנָיו וְכוּ׳. עִם בָּנָיו וְעִם בְּנֵי בֵיתוֹ אִין, וְעִם אַחֵר — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה הַמַּקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה — עוֹבְרִין מִשּׁוּם מִדָּה וּמִשּׁוּם מִשְׁקָל וּמִשּׁוּם מִנְיָן, וּמִשּׁוּם לוֹוִין וּפוֹרְעִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב,
We learned in the mishna that a person may draw lots with one’s children and family members at the table on Shabbat to see who will receive which meal portion. The Gemara infers: With one’s children and family members, yes, it is permitted, but with another person it is not. What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains that it is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, for Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Members of a group who are eating together on Shabbat or on a Festival and who are particular with each other that no one receive a larger portion than anyone else are in violation of the prohibitions of measuring, and weighing, and counting merchandise on Shabbat or a Festival, and they are also in violation of the prohibition against lending and repaying on a Festival.
וּכְדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל אַף מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית.
And according to Beit Hillel, they even violate the prohibition of interest. In Beit Hillel’s view, it is prohibited to loan or return objects without determining their monetary value, lest the object rise in value and the borrower end up returning an item that is more expensive than the one he borrowed.
אִי הָכִי בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ נָמֵי! בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא — כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מוּתָּר לְהַלְווֹת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ בְּרִבִּית כְּדֵי לְהַטְעִימָן טַעַם רִבִּית.
The Gemara asks: If this is so, and one violates so many prohibitions when drawing lots, it should be prohibited to do so with one’s children and family members also. The Gemara answers: With regard to one’s children and family members, this is the reason that it is permitted: It is like the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, for Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is permitted to loan to one’s children and family members with interest, in order to let them experience a taste of how difficult it is to repay a loan taken with interest. Also, in the case of family members, all the money, including the money used to repay the loan, belongs to the same person. Therefore, there is no real prohibition of interest.
אִי הָכִי, מָנָה גְּדוֹלָה כְּנֶגֶד מָנָה קְטַנָּה נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: If this is so, and everything in this case actually belongs to the father, and he uses a lottery system in order to educate his family, it should be permitted to cast lots for a big portion against a small portion also.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: מֵפִיס אָדָם עִם בָּנָיו וְעִם בְּנֵי בֵיתוֹ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֲפִילּוּ מָנָה גְּדוֹלָה כְּנֶגֶד מָנָה קְטַנָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא? — כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב. עִם בָּנָיו וְעִם בְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ — אִין, עִם אֲחֵרִים — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. מָנָה גְּדוֹלָה כְּנֶגֶד מָנָה קְטַנָּה — אַף בַּחוֹל לַאֲחֵרִים אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? — מִשּׁוּם קוּבְיָא.
The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: A person may draw lots with his children and his family members at the table, and he may even do so with a large portion against a small portion. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. Although with one’s children and family members, yes, this is permitted, with others it is not. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Raffling a large portion against a small portion is prohibited to do for other people, even on a weekday. What is the reason? Due to the prohibition against gambling with dice, which is prohibited by rabbinic law as a form of theft.
מְטִילִין חֲלָשִׁין עַל וְכוּ׳. מַאי ״אֲבָל לֹא עַל הַמָּנוֹת״? אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב: אֲבָל לֹא עַל הַמָּנוֹת שֶׁל חוֹל בְּיוֹם טוֹב. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״וְעַמְּךָ כִּמְרִיבֵי כֹּהֵן״, אֲפִילּוּ מָנוֹת דְּחוֹל נָמֵי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The mishna taught that one may draw lots for the sacrifices but not for the specific portions. This statement is not entirely clear, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: But not for the specific portions? Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said that it means: But one may not draw lots for the weekday [ḥol] portions on a Festival. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since the priests are naturally quarrelsome, which the Sages derive from that which is written: “Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove, for your people are like those that strive with the priest” (Hosea 4:4), and in order to maintain peace between them even lotteries for weekday portions were also permitted, therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not the case.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב: כָּל שֶׁחֲבֵירוֹ נֶעֱנָשׁ עַל יָדוֹ — אֵין מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ בִּמְחִיצָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. מְנָלַן? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ מִי יְפַתֶּה אֶת אַחְאָב וְיַעַל וְיִפּוֹל בְּרָמוֹת גִּלְעָד וַיֹּאמֶר זֶה בְּכֹה וְזֶה אֹמֵר בְּכֹה. וַיֵּצֵא הָרוּחַ וַיַּעֲמוֹד לִפְנֵי ה׳ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲנִי אֲפַתֶּנּוּ וְגוֹ׳ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵצֵא וְהָיִיתִי רוּחַ שֶׁקֶר בְּפִי כׇּל נְבִיאָיו וַיֹּאמֶר תְּפַתֶּה וְגַם תּוּכָל צֵא וַעֲשֵׂה כֵן״,
Having quoted Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, the Gemara brings another teaching of this amora. And Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said: Anyone who causes another to be punished on his account, they do not bring him within the partition of the Holy One, Blessed be He, even if he is right. The Gemara asks: From where do we know this? If you say it is because of what is written in the prophecy of Micaiah, that proof can be disputed. It is written: “And the Lord said: Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramot Gilad? And one said: In this manner, and another said: In that manner. And the spirit came out and stood before the Lord and said: I will entice him. And the Lord said to it: With what? And it said: I will go out and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all of his prophets. And He said: You shall entice him and will prevail. Go out and do this” (I Kings 22:20–22).
וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי ״רוּחַ״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זֶה רוּחוֹ שֶׁל נָבוֹת. וּמַאי ״צֵא״ אָמַר רַב: צֵא מִמְּחִיצָתִי. וְדִילְמָא הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, דִּכְתִיב ״דּוֹבֵר שְׁקָרִים לֹא יִכּוֹן״?!
And we said: What is this spirit? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the spirit of Naboth the Jezreelite, who asked to avenge his death at the hands of Ahab. And what is the meaning of the words: Go out, which God commanded him? Rav said: It means that he was given permission to entice Ahab, but God said: Leave from within My partition. Therefore, it seems that the spirit of Naboth was told to leave God’s area because it caused Ahab to be punished. The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps there, the reason is as it is written: “One who speaks lies shall not dwell before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7), and this is the only reason that the spirit of Naboth was removed from within God’s partition.
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״שָׂבַעְתָּ קָלוֹן מִכָּבוֹד שְׁתֵה גַם אַתָּה וְהֵעָרֵל וְגוֹ׳״. ״שָׂבַעְתָּ קָלוֹן מִכָּבוֹד״ — זֶה נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר. ״שְׁתֵה גַם אַתָּה וְהֵעָרֵל״ — זֶה צִדְקִיָּה. חֲדָא, דְּכוּלֵּיהּ קְרָא בִּנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר כְּתִיב. וְעוֹד: צִדְקִיָּה צַדִּיקָא מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִיעְבַּד לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק כָּךְ וְכוּ׳.
Rather, it is derived from here: “You are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised, the cup of the Lord’s right hand will turn to you and filthiness shall be upon your glory” (Habakkuk 2:16). The verse is expounded: “You are filled with shame instead of honor”; this is referring to Nebuchadnezzar. “Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised”; this is referring to Zedekiah, who was also punished for being the cause of Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment, as will be explained. The Gemara rejects this proof: One objection to this is that the entire verse is written about Nebuchadnezzar. And furthermore, with regard to Zedekiah, the righteous one, what could he have done to him? For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said about this matter: When that wicked man wanted to do this to that righteous man, his foreskin was stretched, as will be explained.
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״גַּם עֲנוֹשׁ לַצַּדִּיק לֹא טוֹב״, אֵין ״לֹא טוֹב״ אֶלָּא רָע, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא אֵל חָפֵץ רֶשַׁע אָתָּה לֹא יְגוּרְךָ רָע״ — צַדִּיק אַתָּה ה׳ וְלֹא יָגוּר בִּמְגוּרְךָ רָע.
Rather, the basis for this idea is from here: “Punishment is also not good for the righteous” (Proverbs 17:26), meaning that it is not good for a righteous person to issue punishment. There is no meaning of not good other than evil. And it says: “For You are not a God that desires wickedness, evil will not dwell with You” (Psalms 5:5), meaning that You, God, are righteous and evil shall not dwell with You in Your place of dwelling. Even a righteous person who punishes someone and is called evil and cannot dwell within God’s partition.
מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי ״חֲלָשִׁים״ לִישָּׁנָא דְפוּרָא הוּא? — דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם הֵילֵל בֶּן שָׁחַר נִגְדַּעְתָּ לָאָרֶץ חוֹלֵשׁ עַל גּוֹיִם וְגוֹ׳״, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה מֵטִיל פּוּר עַל גְּדוֹלֵי מַלְכוּת לֵידַע אֵיזֶה בֶּן יוֹמוֹ שֶׁל מִשְׁכַּב זָכוּר. וּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל מַלְכֵי גוֹיִם כּוּלָּם וְגוֹ׳״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁנָּחוּ מִמִּשְׁכַּב זָכוּר.
The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term used in the mishna, ḥalashim, is a word for lots? As it is written: “How have you fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How have you been cut down to the ground, casting lots [ḥolesh] over the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12), and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This verse teaches us that he, Nebuchadnezzar, would cast lots [ḥolesh] for the royal leaders of the nations he had captured, in order to know whose day it was to service him with homosexual relations. And it is written: “All the kings of the nations, all of them sleep in glory, every one in his own house” (Isaiah 14:18). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The meaning of this verse is that they rested from homosexual relations.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל יָמָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע לֹא נִמְצָא שְׂחוֹק בְּפִי כׇּל בְּרִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נָחָה שָׁקְטָה כׇּל הָאָרֶץ פָּצְחוּ רִנָּה״, מִכְּלָל דְּעַד הַשְׁתָּא לָא הֲוָה רִנָּה.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All of the days of the life of that wicked man, laughter could not be found in the mouth of any creature, as it is stated: “The whole earth is at rest and is quiet; they break forth into singing” (Isaiah 14:7). This proves by inference that until now there was not any song.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָסוּר לַעֲמוֹד בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׂעִירִים יְרַקְּדוּ שָׁם״.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited even nowadays to stand in the ruins of the house of that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, in Babylonia, for it is stated about that place: “And demons shall dance there” (Isaiah 13:21). There is concern that one may be injured by the harmful forces there (Maharsha).
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבִּיקֵּשׁ אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע, לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק כָּךְ, נִמְשְׁכָה עׇרְלָתוֹ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה, וְהָיְתָה מְחַזֶּרֶת עַל כׇּל הַמְּסִיבָּה כּוּלָּהּ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שָׂבַעְתָּ קָלוֹן מִכָּבוֹד שְׁתֵה גַם אַתָּה וְהֵעָרֵל״, עָרֵל בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת הָוֵי.
And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, wanted to do to that righteous man, Zedekiah, this act of sodomy, his foreskin was stretched three hundred cubits, and it surrounded the entire company at Nebuchadnezzar’s feast, as it is stated: “Woe to one who gives his neighbor drink, who puts your venom in and also makes him drunk so that you may look upon their nakedness. You are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised [vehe’arel]” (Habakkuk 2:15–16). The word arel, which refers here to one who is uncircumcised and also connotes the foreskin, has a numerical value of three hundred.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיָּרַד אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע לְגֵיהִנָּם רָעֲשׁוּ כׇּל יוֹרְדֵי גֵיהִנָּם, אָמְרוּ: שֶׁמָּא לִמְשׁוֹל עֲלֵיהֶם הוּא בָּא, אוֹ לֵיחָלוֹת כְּמוֹתָם הוּא בָּא? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גַּם אַתָּה חוּלֵּיתָ כָמוֹנוּ אֵלֵינוּ נִמְשָׁלְתָּ״, יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״מִמִּי נָעָמְתָּ רְדָה וְהׇשְׁכְּבָה אֶת עֲרֵלִים״.
And Rav Yehuda also said that Rav said: When that wicked man descended into Gehenna, everyone who had already descended to Gehenna trembled, and they said, referring to themselves in third person: Perhaps he is coming to rule over them; or is he coming to be weakened like them? As it is stated: “They all answer and say to you: Have you also become weak like us? Have you become like us [eleinu nimshalta]?” (Isaiah 14:10). The Hebrew phrase: Eleinu nimshalta, can mean: Have you become like us, or alternatively: Have you come to rule over us. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “Whom do you pass in beauty? Go down and be laid with the uncircumcised” (Ezekiel 32:19). This confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar has the same status in Gehenna as everyone else.
״אֵיךְ שָׁבַת נוֹגֵשׂ שָׁבְתָה מַדְהֵבָה״, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שָׁבְתָה אוּמָּה זוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה
On a related note, the verse states: “And you shall take up this parable against the king of Babylonia and you shall say: How has the oppressor ceased. The exactor of gold has ceased” (Isaiah 14:4). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The meaning of this verse is that this nation that said:
